Pages

Friday, April 19, 2013

Sympathy for the Boston Bomber?

Jose Mario de Vega

I read a Get Real Post article that expresses sympathy
with the Boston bomber. Well, not with the bomber's act, exactly, but with the
motive that is likely behind the bomber: bring down US imperialism.

The article begins
with a stark condemnation of the bombing and expresses condolences for the young boy who was killed. Then it turns the gut-wrenching emotion inside out with an attack on America and ends
with the closing call: "DOWN WITH US IMPERIALISM!!!"

Yes, in caps, three
exclamation points.

In other words, this
blog writer is sympathetic to the motives of the bomber. Make no mistake about
that. It is not a call for understanding, or compassion. It is a clarion call
of hate raised loud and clear on that bastion of blogging integrity Get Real Post.

The article content
is mainly a list, a replication of "a century of U.S. Military
Intervention complied by Dr. Zoltan Grossman".

A few excerpts from
the author's own words in the article:

I hope that
those bastard imperialist and war mongers in Washington and Pentagon will
not use the Boston event as a necessary pretext to bomb or attack North
Korea and/or Iran!

I hope that
the American public would not be again duped and brainwashed by their
stupid, racist and imperialist government!

Those
bastards who bomb Boston are terrorists, in the same vein, that the United
States of America is the NUMBER ONE TERRORIST COUNTRY IN THE WHOLE WORLD
by virtue of their long history of bloodbath, mayhem and mass murder
committed against the people of the world!

My heart
breaks for those who died and injured in Boston, in the same vein that it
pierces and shatters my soul every time an American bomb drops in any part
of the world killing innocent civilians, especially women and children!

And then this
remarkable quote:

Consider
the following conversation below: Guy 1: I’m really upset about the
bombing. Guy 2: The one in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, or the one the
media told you to be sad about?

So the author
believes the gut-wrenching sympathy Americans feel about the Boston tragedy is
sad because the media tells them to be sad. In other words, there is nothing
about the incident on its own merits that calls for sadness. This reveals the
author's own fake condolence in the article, condolence that is merely aimed at posturing himself as a sympathetic man.

He is not a
sympathetic man. He is an angry manipulator.

The list of US
interventions is a rather fascinating list. It is an example of when
information presented out of context makes a new context, a new reality.

The implication is
that the US is an aggressive war-mongering, imperialistic nation. The truth would have
to be found in looking at each case and determining, was the US intervention
good or bad from the perspective of the citizens of the subject nation, or was
the intervention in some way aimed at defending American citizens?

I'm sure one could
compile a reasonably profound balancing list of people who are thankful for the
US engagement in their nation. So it is a rather interesting for what it is, a one-sided list sheared of context.

The good doctor has
made his mark writing and teaching about US racism and military
interventions. He is an advocate AGAINST
war. But he at least appears to teach ideas, not anger.

What about the author of
the blog article on Get Real Post? His name is Jose
Mario de Vega. Here is what he says about himself:

The writer
has a Master’s degree in Philosophy, a law degree and a degree in AB
Political Science. He was previously teaching Philosophy, Ethics and
Anthropology at an institution of higher education in the Nilai University
College at Nilai, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia. He is currently a lecturer at
the College of Arts, Department of Philosophy at the Polytechnic
University of the Philippines. As of the moment, he is preparing to
publish his first book entitled “Dissidente”. It is a collection of his
articles, commentaries and op-ed published by various newspapers in
Southeast Asia.

He tags himself on Get Real Post as "The
Radical".

I'm asking myself as
I near the end of this commentary, had he submitted the post to the Society
of Honor for publication, would I run it? Ought Get Real Post be condemned for running it?

You know, I probably
would run it. With an editor's comment framing
why it is run. The disgrace of Get Real Post is not in running the article. It is in not allowing open comment to balance a provocative viewpoint. It is found in GRP's banning of JoeAm and others who have opposed GRP advocacies in the past. So Get Real Post walks no high ground here.

The article represents an attitude that must be dealt with to find a
peaceful way forward. It fairly represents what I consider to be a simplistic,
angry, narrow-minded perspective held by radicals. In other words,
it is a legitimate viewpoint no matter how disgusting I find the framing to be,
leveraging the Boston bombing tragedy for political gain.

Here's what I
think about the whole of the matter of war and peace:

Wars are not brought
to us by earnest, honest, candid people interested in finding solutions to
competing or conflicting self-interests. They are brought to us by conniving
power-mongers holding narrow views, expecting others to fit into their narrow
views, and leveraging emotions to achieve their goals. Sometimes these people occupy US government positions. Most of the time they are elsewhere.

57 comments:

"Consider the following conversation below: Guy 1: I’m really upset about the bombing. Guy 2: The one in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, or the one the media told you to be sad about?"

The author should have scanned the media from those three countries he cited. That way he can contextualize global coverage of the Bostin incident. What I see here is the author sees media as American i.e. American media as the fountainhead of all news and opinion worldwide. He is guy one. Guy two reads other media. He sees that there are daily terror bombings in all parts of the world that local media reports and editorializes. But the author can only see American media in the statement - "the one the media told you to be sad about?" In short his obsession with America, his determination to bring it down, blinds him to the fact that all bombings are incidents that we should be sad about. - mb

It is the perverse twisting of the Boston tragedy that disturbs me. Take the guts of the article, the list of interventions, and separate it from the Boston tragedy, and it makes for a good academic position, as the original author most likely intended. I don't think de Vega realizes how emotionally close he is to the bomber's likely frame of mind. Devoid of sensitivity and remorse. Anbgry. The notion that he knows how to make the world a better place is laughable.

But it is also true that American foreign policy leaves much to be desired. It evolved from a purely colonial power to self-appointed savior and policeman of the world without taking a good long look at what exactly national interest means. American foreign policy has not progressed beyond McKinley's Manifest Destiny. It should do some soul searching. Is it prosperity at the expense of the world? Is it peace for the benefit of all? Is it to recreate the world into its image and likeness or to learn how to live and respect the choices of those who are different? What sticks in the craw and is the source of a lot of resentment worldwide is the righteousness of a foreign policy that is based on undefined national interest. I guess that's the bane of all those who dominate the world. - mb

A couple of reactions. Foreign policy is defined by the context in which it is adopted. Viet Nam at the outset reflected a fear or even perhaps paranoia about China's foreing policy, in concert with Russian expansionism, and contained a lot of dirty play. Viet Nam at the end had turned as a condemnation of American foreign policy. Iraq II was a knee jerk reaction to the World Trade Center attack. It, too, reflected a policy built on public deceit. So I accept your point.

My point is that it is perhaps beneficial to understand that the Obama foreign policy is different than the Bush policy, and we ought to recognize when policy changes.

The impetus for American efforts to "dominate" are substantially to protect Americans and her ability to compete and excel commercially. Hegemony, not imperialism as in the taking of territory. If Chinese monetary policy seems to unfairly treat American businesses, it is the JOB of American government to try to dominate the Chinese policy.

The American foreign policy is not framed in isolation.

International resentment is one part legitimate and one part envy, or reflects the frustrations of those who cannot compete for whatever reason (corruption, bad decisions, dictators who don't really care about their people, or whatever).

Resentment is a part of the balancing tensions that American voters pick up on when they elect their president.

American national interest is clearly defined: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Pursuit of happiness gets entertwined with commercial enterprise and trade, or generation of wealth.

It is not a static world, and the word "pursuit" suggests happiness may not even be achievable. It is something to strive for.

Foreign policy must be reactive if other nations pursue what American leaders determine are reckless or threatening or unfair aims. Same as with the Philippines, or any other nation. It is how intelligent and adult American leaders and other national leaders are that determines how this plays out. America has a lot of idiots in her Congress. Some other nations do, too. So its tricky.

Given how lunatic the world is, I would expect peace to be difficult to achieve. And being a rich and prominent nation, the US will take a lot of potshots, engage in a lot of places, make mistakes now and then, be kicked back into second place economically by the Chinese, and still be a very wonderful place to take up life. And liberty. And the pursuit of happiness.

life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that's what everyone wants. and that's why it is subjective. as all foreign policy is. the crucial thing is how one pursues life liberty and happiness, how it accumulates wealth. it's all in the how. - mb

Well, you are right. It's in the how. The American how is in her Constitution and in legal processes that are, ummm, exhaustive. It is also in the attentive eyes of journalists and advocates who shape and interpret opinions, which are the forces of direction for her government. It's in the wealth-producing mechanisms of innovation and productivity. So the subjectivity of the "how" is hammered out daily under the strong arms, minds and hearts of 300 million well-intetioned blacksmiths. Cue "God Bless America" . . .

Best sung by Neil Diamond in the Greek Theater in Los Angeles. I miss the Greek, and the joints circulating up and down the rows of huddled happy masses, and the Hollywood Bowl, the biggest picnic under the stars anywhere. I saw "Jesus Christ Superstar" at Universal Ampitheatre. It was rather confined compared to the "Bowl", but it was rockin'

They blame what is wrong with them on America like God blames Filipinos what God cannot provide. If Filipinos succeed God takes the credit. Americans are not like God. Americans give credit where credit is due.

Mario de Vega must have been denied visa to America that is why he hates America. Scratch every anti-American Filipinos all of them were denied visa or wishing they were in America.

AMERICA IS GREAT !!!

Before their court of law I could take oath over Koran, The Bible, Torah or the constitution. I pick the constitution hands-down. American constitution is for real. It specifically say "what I say maybe used against me". But if I were to take oath over the bible I am condemned to "tell the truth because it sets me free". Really? Those that tells the truth go to Vatican dungeon. That is what happened to personal buttler of Ratzinger.

Some have legitimate complaint, and that gets fed into the American opinion stream, which, because most are well-read, gets fed into the legal or governmental processes. Most of the complaint from outside the US comes from those who have not walked in those American shoes, with all the rights and responsibilities and opportunities. And envy makes up a huge part of a lot of complaint, I agree.

I'm not surprised at Jose Mario de Vega's anti American rent. I experienced this kind of outburst from educated and artistic Filipino men right here in New York. I like to attend opening of art shows of Filipino artist at Filipino owned galleries here in New York. I often lead the conversations once they have enough alcohol to open up. I just enjoy listening to them and like to hear how they just turn from nice polite Filipinos to USA haters. This is how I and learned about the 6 million Filipinos that were killed by Americans and the stolen gold at Forth Knox that were stolen from the Filipinos and the Imperialistic f***** Americans who ruined the Philippines. According to my wife the educated (collage educated!) Filipino men are the most anti Americans. Oh and also if you are a Tagalog than you hate even more.

Interesting. You make me observe that there seem to be two kinds of education. That which shapes the mind, and that which shapes emotional health or social maturity. When the mind is sharp enough to see the vibrancy and richness in America, but the social maturity translates this into "I'm inadequate", then you get a lot of anger. And a lot of rationalizations or excuses or blames. As the Philippines rises economically, I think we will see less of this.

I happened to see your comment on Rappler so that's why i'm here. all i can say is not all Filipinos who resent or criticize america have this feeling of inadequacy or bitterness, especially the filipinos who stay in the country. It's unfair to label all filipinos who are critical of US foreign policy as envious or bitter.

For example- some people i know hate america for its hypocrisy on democracy as attested by their support of the Marcos Dictatorship and other forms of authoritarian rule. One can say that Marcos was trying to save the country from communism but he ended up as an equally sinister tyrant. Correct my facts if they are wrong, but based on my short web search, zaire's mobutu seko who received a lot of aid from the US, babangida of nigeria, pinochet of chile are some of the examples of the US supported dictators.

i am neither an america hater nor desperate to move to the US. With all due respect there are many countries I would like to visit first before USA.

If I in any way suggested that all or even most Filipinos who criticize the US as bitter or envious, then I retract those words. I'd guess that most don't think much about it or have positive feelings about the US, some have legitimate complaint (Subic authorities left holding the bag for US failure to clean the base of toxics), some have erroneous complaint (those who say America abandoned Philippine veterans), and some -- like the author whose piece I criticized -- have some very deep issues that I think are founded in envy or insecurity. I believe the Philippines should work in dedicated fashion to craft her own defensive abilities and push the US military more and more to the background. The planet is indeed a huge and interesting place and one should travel where the heart is fed and mind expanded. That would not be Peoria USA, perhaps. My favorite visits were Chile, Italy and Spain. Maybe I'm a closet Latin. Japan, too, was fascinating. A huge cultural stretch.

You are a realist. Foreign policy is self-serving, which makes it evil to those disadvantaged, and benevolent to those who gain, and neither good nor evil to realists who add it up. Every country is exactly the same. It is their basic responsibility to their people, to be self-serving.

But the funny thing is that the world has UN conventions and int'l human rights. Institutionalism, in terms of foreign policy, is a farce. Thinking about these institutions-such as the U.N.-,and int'l laws and conventions add up to the unpopularity of US actions. For example- the consideration of Just War theory concepts in the Geneva convention/ Laws of war conventions add up to argument of US hypocrisy in int'l affairs

Anyway, you have a nice blog. More Filipinos need to be real, open-minded and read your articles

Thanks, Realist. I agree the US is hypocritical on some fronts, instructing others how to behave, but failing in her own responsibilities. Global warming stands foremost on my mind, and the little matter of torture at Guantanamo. It is a failing of democratic structure that it is hard to convince vested interests, who fund politicians, to do tough deeds.

The UN requires some analysis, I think, that I have not done. I know there are divergent interests between the developing and underdeveloped world, and the US. And of course it is hard for any of the large states to release any of their sovereignty to the UN body, so the UN is a tiger without teeth or claws.

Edgar:They don't get cancer, they thrive, they feel entitled. They feel America owns them for all the "pain and suffering" for using and exploiting the Philippines. Filipinos suffered enough under the USA and it's imperialism that we just get our fair share back now. That is my understanding of their thinking.

1. The importance of this piece goes beyond the Boston bombing and Jose Mario de Vega. Let me try to paint some of the aspects of the “grand view” of US imperialism as I see it.

1.1 The US is the cradle of democracy in modern times. As Lincoln put it the nation was “conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal”.

1.2 Due to that proposition, the US was a reluctant imperialist and colonialist. It used the concept of “Manifest Destiny” to justify its adventurism in the Philippines. That concept arose from the New World vision of American settlers to expand throughout the US continent.

1.3 But even so, the concept was applied within the continent. US foreign policy was tinged with isolationism. Its initial reaction to WW I/II was non-interventionist. But responding to the pleas of European friends, it decided to join the fray, and it did so with whole-hearted sacrificial devotion and military might. In no uncertain terms, it must be credited with “saving” the world from the “evil” of the Axis powers.

1.4 After WWII, the concept of “Manifest Destiny” morphed and was redefined to that of a good-and-evil struggle between democracy and communism. In the Cold War, It sought to stop the spread of communism. It did this in the Korean War against Chinese aggression. The Vietnam War was fought on the basis of the domino theory, on the fear that the whole of Asia would grow red if one nation caught the rash of the red disease. I may be mistaken but my impression was that the US was the aggressor in the Vietnam War.

2. Post WWII, I would say the drivers of American foreign policy are:

2.1 To stop the spread of the communist ideology2.2 To spread the ideologies of democracy and capitalism2.3 To stop abuses of human rights in nations under dictatorships and/or civil war. This is the US acting as global policeman.

2.4 To protect Israel2.5 To protect and preserve relations with nations possessed of considerable oil resources (but not to acquire them)2.6 To fight the scourge of drugs

2.7 To counter terrorism which is the offshoot of fundamental religious ideology and US imperialism itself2.8 To maintain its supremacy as a world power2.9 To battle-test the efficacy of new or improved weapons of war

3. I would assess the age of US imperialism as more beneficial than disadvantageous to the whole of mankind. Some of the benefits as I see it are:

3.1 The spread of democracy and human rights3.2 Pax Americana. Steven Pinker (“The Better Angels of Our Nature”) argues that violence has declined especially in the Western world due partly to the spread of democracy.3.3 The exploration of space as an offshoot of the Cold War

3.4 The consequent revolution in technology as an offshoot of space exploration.3.5 The globalization of the world trade and economy3.6 The export of American culture mainly via television shows and movies

3.7 The granting of, and the support for, a permanent home to the Jewish people3.8 The aid in the reconstruction of nations devastated by war

4. Some of the downsides of US imperialism would be:

4.1 The use of war as an instrument of national policy

4.2 Human right abuses due to its mission to spread democracy: support of right-wing dictatorships and the active undermining of left-wing and religious dictatorships

4.3 Human right abuses due to war: rendition, water-torture, the battle-testing of new weapons of war, and the current reliance on remote-controlled weaponry (drones and missiles)

4.4 Human right abuses due to its one-sided support of Israel: the dehumanization of Palestinians and the consequent disrespect of the Arab world.

4.5 The development of new, and the improvement of existing, war weaponry

5. The Boston massacre seems to be the work of Chechnyan losers. It may be too soon to make a meaningful analysis of their act. It may not be driven by Muslim extremism, but simply by envy.

What a wonderful tracking of US foreign policy. There are probably a few nuances worth debating. The relationship with Israel, and the purpose of the engagement in Viet Nam. It was an offensive foray for defensive purposes. The US lost the war because it did not set out to win it by "conquest" of the north. Only defense of the south. But engagement was offensive, yes.

Israel is worth a whole blog, I think. The US opened her arms to Jews and they quickly ramped up to the top of the financial and business communities in New York and other places, like Hollywood. So Israel is more of a brother than the Philippines, which is rather a grubby adopted half-brother who is not always invited to the parties.

I have to log your comments, those that should stand as ready reference points for other discussions.

Thanks.

I trust you were able to find something suitable to cleanse your throat of all the bush dust.

Ah, the ironies of history. The Jews fled into exodus from Egypt's Pharaonic rule in the time of Moses and found a homeland in modern times. Filipinos coalesced into a homeland under Spain's rule and have been in exodus since the time of Marcos. The Wandering Jew is now the Wandering Filipino.

Exodus: "A journey by a large group to escape from a hostile environment."

Of note: the US rapprochement with China after the Sino-Soviet split and after the Vietnam War. This was a classic divide-and-conquer maneuver on the part of the US and a pragmatic shift by China. And to think that the much-maligned Nixon did it with Kissinger's help and that of his counterpart, the enigmatic Zhou Enlai. Of whom Dag Hammarskjold said: "It is a little bit humiliating when I have to say that Chou En-lai to me appears as the most superior brain I have so far met in the field of foreign politics. so much more dangerous than you imagine because he is so much better a man than you have ever admitted."

Yes, I note that the OFW flood is commonly referred to here as the diaspora. Definitions 1 through 3 at dictionary.com refer to Jews, definition 4 says: "any group migration or flight from a country or region".

China was and is Nixon's main glory. Kissinger at least has his womanizing also to speak for his charms. When asked his secret, he said something like "I genuinely fall in love with each woman I meet". I don't know of Chou En-Lai's perspectives on that. But what a group of characters that was. Now we have Obama and a few bureaucrats of no particular distinction.

Side note: I read today that US Senator Graham has gone off the deep end, suggesting the white-hat Marathon bomber not be read his Miranda rights and be tried as an enemy of the state. In other words be disposed of without due process. I think Jefferson, Lincoln, MLK probably shuddered in their graves, along with all the soldiers who died defending American values and principles.

America's diversity is indeed stunning. The notion that America is "white" is probably myth number one that needs to be done away with. I love Los Angeles for its hodgepodge of ethnicities, and its variety cuisines and, in a prior life, it's enticing females.

You don’t hate things that are irrelevant for you. Caring as the opposite of irrelevance is maybe too strong, but often I see hate as an awkward way to express emotions of disappointment, of unfulfilled expectations, as calling an out of reach good sour grapes.

A1. Agree, yes.A2. The answer is initially counter-intuitive, but true. If you don't care about some people, you are indifferent to them.A3. Generalities are a way of understanding things. Without abstraction all would be chaos. But abstraction taken too far prevents us from seeing particular instances. Undiscerning abstraction is prejudice, bigotry, sterotyping, the world of the 100 percenter.

Another reflection on abstraction while lying in bed on a lazy Sunday morn.

The mystic states that abstraction, ideation causes blindness. In trying to grasp reality we lose connection with it. The idea, the word, becomes the thing . When looking at a tree, we see the idea of a tree but not the tree.

The mystic state of non-duality is a return to the pre-verbal world. This is Blake’s “to see a world in a grain of sand...and eternity in an hour”.

Is Josephlvo closest to attaining this mystical state of bliss with his propensity for dynamics, his inclination to see processes rather than states ? I am inclined to think so.

I just love Americans especially American Media they educated me again. U.P. Ateneo la Salle journalism graduates and their graduates in general are stupidifying the Filipinos no end, Alan, Raissa, Rappler and the rest sounds like bunch of kindergarten drop-outs.

In National Public Radio thru KCRW are questioning their action of American Media's coverage and reporting of Boston Bombing in a race to get credit to snare Boston Bombers. Self-reflection, self-criticism, how they could have done it differently, etcetera. They criticize themselves of incomplete and speculative reporting that turned out to be completely wrong. WHEREAS, Alan and Raissa are still mum about Ces Drilon kidnapping news blackout afraid to anger terrorist publicity-hungry Abu Syaf. No sabbatical over outing of rape victim Nicole. No offering of solutions to authorities what should be done right BUT DEFINITELY CAN PROFER SOLUTION HOW TO GET BACK MALACANANG FOR POLITICAL PARTY. DUH! DUH! DUH!

The Philippine media are wired solely exclusively for political commentaries. Well that is what they know.

Right now the American Media are debating whether the dude bomber is to be read his Miranda rights as American citizen or treated as emeny combatant. Nothing like that during Renato Corona's impeachment trial.

The Philippine Media's intellectual condition reflects the general mental condition of the Filipinos. Because if Filipinos were intelligent like me, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE SUBSCRIBED TO TFC AND READ LOCAL AND NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS instead they would have read readily accessible foreign news websites.

1) Very interesting perspective on Philippine media being comfortable with political reporting but not factual or investigative reporting. They are comfortable in the sleaze and quotes of interpersonal rivalries. Fascinating. It fits.

2) The emotions of the moment are underpinning the call to declare the "white hat" bomber an enemy combatant. That is exactly what due process is designed to protect against. If he is declared an enemy combatant, then the leaders of America have dropped one more rung down the scale of enlightened democratic caretakers. The bomber is no different than McVeigh or any other AMERICAN with anger and a weapon. Ne is no different than your typical activist NRA member.

I must admit, GRP is beginning to lose its appeal (to me). This latest article is no exception. But, then again, they (GRP) have shown a sense of editorial equality. I don't expect any blog or newspaper to contain articles which will always appeal to me. However, the article in question pushes the boundaries of what one considers to be logical. Granted, the author is completely biased but I wonder how his article made it to GRP. The sum total of his original thoughts would be better suited for a "Tweet".

As I write this, Bomber-1 is DEAD and Bomber-2 has been apprehended. Bomber-1 will most likely be made into some kind of hero by those who follow the "US is evil and everyone else is good" mantra while Bomber-2 will be sentenced to "Coffee Years" in Federal Prison (for as long as they make Coffee, that mutha-f@*ka will be IN jail). The City of Boston and the entire world has seen what can happen when the full force of Local, State & Federal Law Enforcement work in tandem to achieve a common goal. That level of commitment is not seen here in the Philippines when dealing with terrorists or even criminals. Folks like the author of the GRP article will never be able to see things objectively. They only see the United States as being the root cause for all the worlds problems. What they fail to see is the US, with all its faults, coming together in action or prayer. They fail to see the National and Local News Media organizations (albeit for ratings) dedicating 90% of their airtime to "get the word out". They fail to see what can happen when the full force of US Law Enforcement comes to bare on a target and they will fail to notice how swiftly the guilty will be tried in a Court of Law... They fail to see all of this and what is happening in their own country (the Philippines). Even Karen Davila (ABS-CBN) commented on her amazement of how huge the operation in Boston became and questioned why it can't be the same here...

On second thought, I'm sure they see it! They just leave those parts out of the commentary because it does not serve their purpose...

"Envy the country that has heroes, huh? I say pity the country that needs them." (Denton Van Zan)

Yes, it was an amazing display of force, and I am sure the backtracking to find whom the bombers met with in Russia is well along. It also shows the power of video media everywhere, and confirms the notion that "big brother" is actually in the People's hands.

As for GRP, I've long thought they underperformed based on the brainpower that is there, chosing a very narrow and negative slant on things when they could help advocate for positive development of the Philippines. This article was like, "wow!".

I cannot believe American media are over the conundrum over reading the bomber his Miranda Rights ...While Filipinos as simple as banking secrecy laws were not debated by media despite laws in the Philippines are plagiarized from American laws and these same people would want to live in America. ARe Filipinos this dense?

Just reading Miranda rights makes or breaks American laws. American check in clerk inquiring the usual "did you pack your own bags?" carries weight more than Philippine Justices graduate from ivhy-schools. My answer "yes, I pack my own bags and I know what i pucked" would be used against me in the court of American laws. BUT NEVER IN THE PHILIPPINES. Was I asked that question in the Philippine airfort? I CANNOT REMEMBER IF EVER THEY ASKED ME THAT QUESTION.

In America, laws are simple and not need interpretation. Why are Filipinos like these? It has religious roots. What they read in the bible is not what it seems. THE "Do not interpret literally the bible" is what screwing the Filipino minds.

I always wondered that, too. Why the Philippine Constitution is longer, the laws are detailed and pedantic and full of Latin and other legalese, and no one obeys they anyway. Peculiar way to run a set of rules.

It's far easier to come up with beautiful words to write laws than worry about the principle behind them and enforcing the said laws.

Additionally, I always thought that the use of dense legalese in laws is contrary to the spirit of democracy because it empowers lawyers and lawmakers to implement laws that are difficult to understand and bury opposition to the law through obfuscation.

@Boris, yes, that makes sense. And it seems to make for a lot of TRO's that block laws from the getgo because they are, in their wordiness, technically defective, Constitutionally. Or at least it is easy to argue that they are defective. And secure the TRO.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. But it fits with the uprising against CJ Sereno. It's rather like, if you are a straightarrow and walk into a biker bar, you are likely to bear a little heat. Or if you are a straight Chief Justice wading into a corrupt judiciary, you don't have a lot of friends. They make sure you make mistakes.

The SC justices certainly do not convey a spirit of professional unity, the desire to want to right the sorely listing judicial ship. They seem to reflect "bought souls".

Sad, when justice and fairness mean so much to the civility of society.

Right, which is not a loyalty in law, but in favor. If it can be demonstrated that judges are operating on any basis but interpretation of the law, I'd hope that there is some recourse under law. Like impeachment or suspension. If they can't find integrity, it ought to be imposed upon them.

Jose Mario de la Vega forgot to mention that terrorists from their own nations kill more of their countrymen more than the US did.

North Korea is killing its people by starvation. Pakistanti and Palestinian terrorists use their own people as human bombs to kill their own people (and sometimes, Indian people too)The NPA have been killing Filipino civilians and have a policy of internal purging as well as purging of former factions that tried to negotiate peace and development with the government (ex Conrado Balweg case). The last one was when they targeted a police who had arrested the NPA and innocent civilians were also killed...but no NPA was punished and the leftist CHR is not doing anything but it would love to castrate the military if they caught a high ranking NPA. Now, is Jose Mario also sympathetic to this NPA who carelessly target people they do not like WITHOUT due process and get away if civilians are also killed?

Without US intervention more people will die. Sorry but that's the truth. Look at Syria....no intervention, more people dying. More Kuwaitis would have died if the US did not intervene in the Gulf War

And these are the same people who, if things go worse, they will complain the US is not intervening.